BIODIVERSITY
What is the current state of the Earth’s flora and fauna, and what can we do to protect it?
In December 2022, government representatives and other official bodies from around the world met in Montreal, Canada, for COP15: The UN Biodiversity Conference. Among the many things discussed was the so-called ‘30 by 30’ target – the pledge to conserve 30 per cent of the planet’s terrestrial and marine habitat by 2030.
We spoke to Dr Andrew Terry, director of conservation and policy at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), about the significance of the target, the current state of Earth’s biodiversity and what we can do to reverse the already devastating losses.
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF BIODIVERSITY?
Biodiversity speaks to the range of the variety of life. We think about that right from the genetic level all the way up to whole ecosystems. We tend to only think about the different animals, plants and fungi that make up life, but biodiversity is the full variety of life on Earth. Unfortunately, biodiversity is a term that doesn’t resonate very well with people. As a technical term it captures something, but we’re really talking about nature. And nature underpins the ability of humanity to persist. We depend on it for our health, our wellbeing, the ability of our economies to function. Unfortunately, we’ve flipped that on its head and we’ve put our economies at the top and nature at the bottom. Ultimately, that is the root cause of all our problems.
WHAT’S THE CURRENT STATE OF BIODIVERSITY AROUND THE WORLD?
It’s declining massively. Every indicator you look at – whether it’s the Living Planet Index, which is one that ZSL produces that looks at the state of wildlife populations worldwide, or whether you look at the health of ecosystems or the health of genetic variation – they’re all declining. Every single indicator shows us that biodiversity is declining and this has major knock-on consequences for us.
WHAT’S CAUSING BIODIVERSITY LOSS?
Principally, it’s habitat use and habitat loss. We’re changing natural areas for human use, by turning primary forest into agriculture, highways or mines, for example. It’s also direct overexploitation of species through fishing and harvesting practices, or the way in which we clear forests for timber. And then we’ve got other drivers of change, such as invasive species. As we’ve moved around the world and become increasingly globalised, we’ve transferred species into places they shouldn’t be.
And then, obviously, climate change comes along. Historically, climate change hasn’t been a major driver of change, but we’re going to see it come to dominate over the years.
WHAT IS THE ‘30 BY 30’ TARGET? IS IT MORE THAN JUST A CATCHY NAME?
Yes, 30 by 30 is very catchy. I think a number of people really wanted it to be like the 1.5°C global-warming target, but for nature. It refers to wanting to see 30 per cent of terrestrial and ocean systems protected by 2030. So at a very simplistic level, that’s what the target is, but there’s a lot of detail and nuance that’s hidden within that simplicity.
HAS THE TARGET BEEN WELL RECEIVED?
That depends on who you ask. There are two chief criticisms of it. Number one is that it represents a form of fortress-based conservation [by creating protected areas], which can be seen as being very old school. So depending on how you implement it, it can involve quite negative practices in terms of relationships with local communities.
The second major criticism concerns the question of quantity over quality. So 30 per cent by 2030 is a sort of arbitrary target. We know that many areas, effectively, only exist on paper and that biodiversity has declined even as protected areas have increased. If we only think about designating more areas for protected status, we’re going to be missing a big part of the problem.
SO HOW ABOUT SOLUTIONS?
This all comes down to implementation and financing. And again, these were the real sticking points in Montreal. We are going to need to see a significant mobilisation of resources. There’s
a $700bn [£585bn approx] gap in resources available for conservation to get from where we are, to where we think we need to be to solve the problem. Now, countries were very forthcoming with financing at COP and within the new global biodiversity framework, but they were looking at offering $30bn by 2030, not $700bn. So we’re going to need to see an increase in both public and private financing.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AT GROUND LEVEL?
We have lots of prioritisation tools that tell us where the important areas for different forms of nature are, and we should be focusing on those areas first. We should be looking at how we are integrating communities into the management of those areas and how we can ensure that community lands are adequately supported to protect nature. Because that’s where I think that great expansion in numbers is going to come from. It’s not going to come from your classic National Park ideas, but from community lands and how they can be supported to protect biodiversity.
To give a tangible example, in the UK we’re shifting our subsidy schemes for farming to include nature stewardship as well. So yes, it’s for food production, but it’s also for protecting nature. How can we protect areas that help us meet multiple targets at the same time?
There’s lots of detail about planning and prioritisation and support that’s going to have to go into every single country all at the same time. It’s quite a job we’ve got ahead of us.
DO YOU FEEL OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE?
We always talk about a cautious optimism. The presence of the private sector at COP was higher than ever before. Companies have recognised not only the value of looking at nature, but the risks of not looking at nature. That sends a powerful economic signal and we’re starting to really see that shift. As the private sector pushes, we will see treasuries and finance ministries starting to take stronger note and that’s where the shifts really need to happen.
And similarly, I think we are seeing nature, sustainability and climate all coming to the fore of people’s attention. From that side, I am really optimistic. My children talk to me about the natural world and know more about their environment than I ever did as a child. The younger generation are getting increasingly critical and asking more questions. So we’re seeing action happening. We just need to translate that into the resources that have the impact that will then bend the curve of biodiversity loss in 10 years’ time.
I think we are creating the enabling framework, but we need to hold countries to account to actually make the changes and make them now because we don’t really have the time.
“We are seeing nature, sustainability and climate all coming to the fore of people’s attention”